Bubble (2005)I think any movie by Steven Soderbergh was at least worth looking at if only because he takes what you might call safe chances. But they are chances. Some are brilliant or at least very successful, such as "Erin Brockovich" or "Traffic," and others are well done and worthy side trips like "Che" or even the recent "Contagion." But then there are clunkers like the well-intentioned "The Good German" shot using vintage equipment and trying hard to be the real deal 50 years late.So "Bubble" looks like something straight from the Indie world--a small unknown cast, a simple kind of location shooting, modest production values, and full of decent sincere acting. And a decent idea, at least enough to draw you in: a group of people work in a struggling doll factory in an Ohio town and a new employee gets murdered. In a very believable almost documentary way the local detective looks for answers. And the murderer is found.Well folks, that's it. There's a very long build up to the crime, setting up in fifty minutes what a good noir would do in five. We get to know the small cast of very ordinary folk. They are mostly likable, but all a bit quirky. (They live in West Virginia, actually, across the river from the factor.) There is no real suspense or curiosity required during this time, just patience. Then there is the murder (not shown, just told). And the detective makes his rounds interviewing each of these people we now know as viewers. And we know kind of who might have done it or why. And then the crime is solved (and the perp is no surprise, and is intentionally not meant to be). And then the movie ends.I don't know if there's some kind of surreal intention here, or if it really is about how mundane life is in Middle America even when a killing is involved. But it's not enough. The movie is short (75 minutes) so it's not the end of the world (as "Tree of Life" was for a lot of people, or "Barry Lyndon" depending on your taste). So try it out. The doll factory scenes are briefly interesting. The side characters are subdued and fine. The cop is wonderful and a bit drab. You might decide this is a film about relationships since that ends up being the core of the movie, or about personality types (since these get dissected by the cop interviews) but if so, there are a million ways to make this more moving or interesting or odd or anything.Focused mediocrity?

Kyle is a young man who works at a repetitious job in a doll factory in a small mid-western town. He works most closely with Martha, an overweight and less than attractive middle-aged woman whom Kyle depends on for rides to work. Martha's social life outside of work consists of taking care of her aging father. Rose, an attractive young woman, is hired and joins Martha and Kyle on their daily breaks. The conversations in the lunch room are perhaps the most mundane ever put in a commercial film.I began to wonder what direction this could take that could possibly hold my attention, but Rose's entering the picture began to change the personal dynamics in way that kept my attention. Rose presented a challenge to Martha's maternal feelings for Kyle (in fact there is a suggestion that there may be more than maternal instincts involved). As the movie moves toward its final resolution we get to know the three characters: Kyle is a study in passivity, Rose knows she wants more and will do what it takes to get it, and Martha is seen to have strong emotions under her plain exterior.The inside of the doll factory makes for a suitable backdrop for this downbeat tale among the working poor. I was surprised that making the dolls had not been more automated than is pictured, since many of the tasks are robotic. There is a lot of manual work involved, for example, one of Martha's jobs is to affix eyelashes to the dolls, and Kyle works on forming the doll legs. The plot develops very subtly; this movie is not one that will set you back on your heels. The use of non-professional actors in all roles works here. I doubt that any director could have gotten this level of authenticity from professionals. There are rewards here for the patient viewer.

I hate to be the one that breaks it to you...but your film sucks ***. But you are a smart guy, you already know that. It might find a home on you tube, maybe, but you will be competing with a thousand middle school and high school students who went out and bought a DV cam to shoot some self serving verite footage of their uber banal youth. But then again, you better not post it, you don't want to find that 'my day working at the vending machine factory' gets 5X more views than your piece. That might explode the bubble masquerading as your head. (I know, you already beat us to the 'exploding the bubble' pun in your special features, but I though you might be able to use my extended metaphor somewhere else. Feel free to use it; think of it as a sort of public domain thing.)

Bubble is a shockingly brilliant record of our time. I voted it a nine. How could it get an R rating for "language" though? There's little harsh language. I'm thinking that the ratings people were shocked and upset with the harshly real portrait of the banal life so many Americans are forced to lead due to the double edged sword of an economic system/culture that exploits so many workers while inundating them with consumerist mentality. People holding down multiple jobs without any hope of ever "getting ahead." All work, little play - with little else to do other than watch television if there is free time. This is a harsh movie because it is such a clear depiction of the hopelessness that many youth are headed for. Imagine the consequences if they are allowed to see it?